translation vs parphrase

[phydaux]

So when it comes to actual bible study, as opposed to devotional reading, I think we can agree that you would want a good Bible translation. KJV, NKJV, NASB, these are all well known and respected bible translations. The NIV is a transliteration. A little different, but I think most people would agree it is a suitable launching platform for serious bible study.

The Living Bible is a paraphrase. While good for devotional reading and to understand broad topics, it's not the sort of thing you'd want to rely on for serious doctrinal bible study.

My question is on the New Living Bible and The Message. Are these considered translations, or are they paraphrases?

 

[1watchman]

I believe the KJV today in good quality editions including marginal corrections, is a reliable rendering, and that is due to the fact that it has stood the purifying test of time ---new versions have not. That is to say that all Bible versions have errors, but the printings of the KJV have held to the basic wording from much earlier printing, and all changes are made in the margins and commentaries and not textual changes (because the wordings are substantially sound). When words get changed the meaning, emphasis, and thoughts of God are diminished.

I find the Old Scofield Edition of the KJV is the most reliable and helpful Bible for study. Look up and seek God's mind always!

 

[parsley]

Sometimes the Bibles will define it on the title page.

I'm not sure if this list of paraphrased Bibles is accurate, but it seems well-thought-out.

Paraphrased Bible Translations - Olive Tree Bible Software

I've become dependent on Studylight's Interlinear Hebrew/Greek with word definitions, but that's harder to bring to a group meeting without getting absorbed in electronic devices. Lots of clicking.

Search for: Matthew 26:56 - Strong's Interlinear Bible Search - Reference Desk - StudyLight.org

Sometimes I listen to audio paraphrases and get upset when I've heard eureka-gems, and then look them up, only to find the statement was a bad translation.

 

[phydaux]

Thanks parsley.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Living, The Message, would be described more as paraphrased versions. Such versions might have uses especially in familiarizing readers with narratives of Scripture.

But for close, verse by verse study, a more formal version is much better.

 

[RDKirk]

So when it comes to actual bible study, as opposed to devotional reading, I think we can agree that you would want a good Bible translation. KJV, NKJV, NASB, these are all well known and respected bible translations. The NIV is a transliteration. A little different, but I think most people would agree it is a suitable launching platform for serious bible study.

Every single English bible on earth is a transliteration. That's because none of the original texts was written in Latin characters, but Greek or Hebrew characters.

The NIV is also a translation.

The line between translation and paraphrase is fuzzy. As anyone who speaks a second language knows, no translation can be perfectly word for word. Very often there simply is no exact word in the second language for the word in the first, so some other construction with the same meaning must be used.

In other cases, a word-for-word translation would simply not make sense in the other langauge. For instance, you can translate "You're pulling my leg" or "between a rock and a hard place" from English to Spanish, but it would not make the same sense to the Spanish speaker. To convey the same ideas, you'd want to say "You're pulling my hair" or "between the sword and the wall."

And that is with two conventional languages between two modern European cultures. It will be much greater when the differences are between very different cultures separated by a couple of thousand years. So even a good "translation" will also include some limited paraphrasing in order to convey the same meaning.

The Living Bible is a paraphrase. While good for devotional reading and to understand broad topics, it's not the sort of thing you'd want to rely on for serious doctrinal bible study.

My question is on the New Living Bible and The Message. Are these considered translations, or are they paraphrases?

Those are both very broad paraphrases, IMO to the point that they don't get even the meanings accurate in many cases.

 

[faroukfarouk]

In Robert Martin's book 'Accuracy of Translation' (Banner of Truth) he looks at various passages and shows how some versions break down one or two Greek sentences into many sentences, others such as the King James and NKJV almost retain the Greek sentence structure.